10 ms·

Tokyo High Court slashes damages to Fukushima nuclear disaster evacuees

47 points by ericdanielski 7y ago

atdrummond 7y ago
Not even 10,000 USD. A bit underwhelming even at the original award amount (3m Yen, ~27,600 USD).
- PaulHoule 7y ago
  It makes me think of a visual novel in which a character is bullied and has 1 million yen extorted by another character over a period of time. We thought about and figured that was very possible.
- jcheng 7y ago
  > ...on top of the ¥8.5 million it paid per person based on estimates calculated under government-set interim standards. So ¥9.5 million, or ~$88,000 total
  - atdrummond 7y ago
    Correct. I know individuals whose expenses related to abandonment of their homes in the region (such as temporary housing, replacement of household goods, etc.) far exceeded ¥1 million. The original amount, much less the reduced compensation, didn't seem appropriate in light of the experienced abandonment-related damages. I don't know enough about the ¥8.5 million calculation, and what damages it is meant to cover, to conclude whether it is a reasonable sum or not.
pgt 7y ago
I used to be pro-nuclear, but here in South Africa, we can't even keep our coal plants running - nevermind nuclear. Last week a 930MW nuclear turbine at Koeberg went down because the cooling pump filters had not been cleaned in years and was filled with fish and jellyfish. Small-scale, independent solar producers and perhaps geothermal or CSP (molten salt) seem to be the only strategies that can work. There will always be corruption, war and fraud. To be pro-nuclear, you have to guarantee political stability for 100+ years, and I don't think many places could guarantee that.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  That how I view it too. Especially with the idea of smaller and more reactors somebody somewhere somewhen will screw up big time.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  > There will always be corruption, war and fraud. To be pro-nuclear, you have to guarantee political stability for 100+ years, and I don't think many places could guarantee that. Indeed. This is the crux of it. Nuclear run by the US military? Very safe. Nuclear (as a power source, not talking munitions) run by the rest of the world as a commercial operation? Fraught with peril. I'm not anti-nuclear; I'm anti-humans-running-nuclear-for-profit. It's time to move to renewables, batteries, and transmission networks, full steam ahead. https://pvbuzz.com/renewables-capacity-overwhelms-coal-gas-oil/ https://pvbuzz.com/renewables-capacity-overwhelms-coal-gas-o... (US: Over the next three years, renewables will add nearly 50,000-MW of new capacity and be more than a quarter of total, while gas, coal, oil, and nuclear will drop by 4,200-MW) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/12/wind-and-solar-plants-will-soon-be-cheaper-than-coal-in-all-big-markets-around-world-analysis-finds https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/12/wind-and... (Wind and solar plants will soon be cheaper than coal in all big markets around world, analysis finds)
  - WalterBright 7y ago
    > I'm anti-humans-running-nuclear-for-profit. Chernobyl wasn't run for profit.
    - Ididntdothis 7y ago
      Sure it was. Why would the soviets have build it if not for profit?
      - manfredo 7y ago
        To produce electricity as part of a state-planned economy. It turns out governments are just as capable of cutting corners and making poor decisions like having a positive void coefficient, combined control/catalyst rods, and a lack of secondary containment.
gchamonlive 7y ago
> But the amount of the additional damages should be reduced because individual circumstances of the evacuees should not be taken into account I wonder what is the reasoning behind this.
- kazinator 7y ago
  The reasoning is probably that individuals have individual problems that are in addition to being evacuees from the disaster. Problem is, you can't separate that from the disaster. Problems combine. If you have two problems A and B in your life, the impact isn't simply A + B. It could be as much as A x B. If B is the fault of someone who caused an accident, there should be some room to go after more than just B-sized compensation. But, anyway, this seems to illustrate the court system at work. It's not simply the case that one side gets everything that they want. That's why you have to sue for more than you're willing to settle for; ask for a pie in the sky, settle for a muffin.
  - gowld 7y ago
    Indeed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull
anigbrowl 7y ago
In difficult times, those with power will always choose to hurt the weakest. Something to remember going forward.
- creddit 7y ago
  Seems like this isn't so true now with the COVID crisis. Lots of talk about giving everyone checks. Lots of companies continuing to pay workers who aren't working. What drives your statement?
  - gowld 7y ago
    The jury is still out. The Piper hasn't come for the pay yet.
    - creddit 7y ago
      https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/world/coronavirus-news.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/world/coronavirus-news.ht...
zadkey 7y ago
Some of the wording in this article is confusing. "The Tokyo High Court on Tuesday ordered ¥1 million in additional damages be paid each to some 300 evacuees from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, down by two-thirds from the amount awarded by a lower court ruling." "Additional damages" vs "down by two-thirds" If it's down by two-thirds, it's not additional, its a reduction.
- zadkey 7y ago
  This only makes sense if there was an initial court ruling for a set amount of damages. And then later another ruling for additional damages by a lower court, and then a higher court reduced the additional amount.
- im3w1l 7y ago
  x+y1 vs x+y2, with y2 = 1/3 y1

47 points by ericdanielski 7y ago

atdrummond 7y ago

Not even 10,000 USD. A bit underwhelming even at the original award amount (3m Yen, ~27,600 USD).

PaulHoule 7y ago
It makes me think of a visual novel in which a character is bullied and has 1 million yen extorted by another character over a period of time. We thought about and figured that was very possible.
jcheng 7y ago
> ...on top of the ¥8.5 million it paid per person based on estimates calculated under government-set interim standards. So ¥9.5 million, or ~$88,000 total
- atdrummond 7y ago
  Correct. I know individuals whose expenses related to abandonment of their homes in the region (such as temporary housing, replacement of household goods, etc.) far exceeded ¥1 million. The original amount, much less the reduced compensation, didn't seem appropriate in light of the experienced abandonment-related damages. I don't know enough about the ¥8.5 million calculation, and what damages it is meant to cover, to conclude whether it is a reasonable sum or not.

pgt 7y ago

I used to be pro-nuclear, but here in South Africa, we can't even keep our coal plants running - nevermind nuclear. Last week a 930MW nuclear turbine at Koeberg went down because the cooling pump filters had not been cleaned in years and was filled with fish and jellyfish. Small-scale, independent solar producers and perhaps geothermal or CSP (molten salt) seem to be the only strategies that can work. There will always be corruption, war and fraud. To be pro-nuclear, you have to guarantee political stability for 100+ years, and I don't think many places could guarantee that.

Ididntdothis 7y ago
That how I view it too. Especially with the idea of smaller and more reactors somebody somewhere somewhen will screw up big time.
toomuchtodo 7y ago
> There will always be corruption, war and fraud. To be pro-nuclear, you have to guarantee political stability for 100+ years, and I don't think many places could guarantee that. Indeed. This is the crux of it. Nuclear run by the US military? Very safe. Nuclear (as a power source, not talking munitions) run by the rest of the world as a commercial operation? Fraught with peril. I'm not anti-nuclear; I'm anti-humans-running-nuclear-for-profit. It's time to move to renewables, batteries, and transmission networks, full steam ahead. https://pvbuzz.com/renewables-capacity-overwhelms-coal-gas-oil/ https://pvbuzz.com/renewables-capacity-overwhelms-coal-gas-o... (US: Over the next three years, renewables will add nearly 50,000-MW of new capacity and be more than a quarter of total, while gas, coal, oil, and nuclear will drop by 4,200-MW) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/12/wind-and-solar-plants-will-soon-be-cheaper-than-coal-in-all-big-markets-around-world-analysis-finds https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/12/wind-and... (Wind and solar plants will soon be cheaper than coal in all big markets around world, analysis finds)
- WalterBright 7y ago
  > I'm anti-humans-running-nuclear-for-profit. Chernobyl wasn't run for profit.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    Sure it was. Why would the soviets have build it if not for profit?
    - manfredo 7y ago
      To produce electricity as part of a state-planned economy. It turns out governments are just as capable of cutting corners and making poor decisions like having a positive void coefficient, combined control/catalyst rods, and a lack of secondary containment.

gchamonlive 7y ago

> But the amount of the additional damages should be reduced because individual circumstances of the evacuees should not be taken into account I wonder what is the reasoning behind this.

kazinator 7y ago
The reasoning is probably that individuals have individual problems that are in addition to being evacuees from the disaster. Problem is, you can't separate that from the disaster. Problems combine. If you have two problems A and B in your life, the impact isn't simply A + B. It could be as much as A x B. If B is the fault of someone who caused an accident, there should be some room to go after more than just B-sized compensation. But, anyway, this seems to illustrate the court system at work. It's not simply the case that one side gets everything that they want. That's why you have to sue for more than you're willing to settle for; ask for a pie in the sky, settle for a muffin.
- gowld 7y ago
  Indeed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull

anigbrowl 7y ago

In difficult times, those with power will always choose to hurt the weakest. Something to remember going forward.

creddit 7y ago
Seems like this isn't so true now with the COVID crisis. Lots of talk about giving everyone checks. Lots of companies continuing to pay workers who aren't working. What drives your statement?
- gowld 7y ago
  The jury is still out. The Piper hasn't come for the pay yet.
  - creddit 7y ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/world/coronavirus-news.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/world/coronavirus-news.ht...

zadkey 7y ago

Some of the wording in this article is confusing. "The Tokyo High Court on Tuesday ordered ¥1 million in additional damages be paid each to some 300 evacuees from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, down by two-thirds from the amount awarded by a lower court ruling." "Additional damages" vs "down by two-thirds" If it's down by two-thirds, it's not additional, its a reduction.

zadkey 7y ago
This only makes sense if there was an initial court ruling for a set amount of damages. And then later another ruling for additional damages by a lower court, and then a higher court reduced the additional amount.
im3w1l 7y ago
x+y1 vs x+y2, with y2 = 1/3 y1